My attention was drawn to him by someone on Twitter, who said that he was "good value". I have subsequently learned what she meant. In summary, he tweets rather like the BBC travel news - on time, but not to any great effect.
I'm sure what I'm about to blog is libellous. I certainly hope so; I might get to the sort of readership that Lord Old Holborn gets, rather than my usual pair of readers having a look every half an hour to make me feel good (and for which, both of you, I am most grateful).
I followed the honourable member for somewhere in Glasgow. He tweets what he blogs, as do many of us. I read it, fleetingly, as do many of us. And I have discovered that there is a huge, HUGE, problem with his attitude (lawyers, please note).
For your edification, here is one of the blogs in question . Have a read - you may not want to come back and see what I think.
You're back? Well, my initial reaction, which I vaguely remember tweeting earlier is "cock". Then I re-read it. And I'm not wrong.
Allow me to dissemble it.
"A LIMIT of seven minutes was imposed on speeches on Monday night, so the contribution I had prepared had to be cut down quite drastically"
Not his fault, but an indication that the whole system is flawed.
"Unfortuately, having spent most of my allotted time talking about the LibDems, I didn’t leave myself much time to talk about important issues."
The "unfortuately" is his typo, not mine. More importantly, I think it is a word meaning "because I am a ranting cock", whereas I initially thought he meant unfortunately (a word implying "through no fault of my own").
The Rt Hon Glaswegian then goes on to copy and paste his speech (the one he didn't have time to deliver).
"Mr Deputy Speaker, you may be aware that a leadership election is currently underway in my own party."
Genius. Alienate your audience.
"Yet listening is an utterly pointless activity for any politician unless doing so results in a new or changed policy"
Hello? Listening is pointless? Holy cow, chap, you mean these ponces stand up in the HoC and talk cock, you have your fingers in your ears, then you vote on it? Please explain. I want to know.
I read on. "Labour was wrong". Read between the lines. But I won't take issue with that. The Rt Hon Tom is entitled to his opinion, as am I, as are both of you, my dear readers. But then my hackles, whatever they are, were hackled. With this:
"...if we, the political elite of this country..."
Do what? Elite? Methinks someone has missed the point. Fuck it, they've missed the target, shooting range and most of the surrounding villages. The political elite?
Look, mate, you decided to be an MP. My MP isn't like that, and if she ever turns out to be she's going to get a proper earful not only from me, but from the whole bloody constituency. Elite?
Anyway, we'll let that one go, shall we? I know, you know, both my readers know and I firmly believe that every right-thinking individual and most domestic animals know that if you walked a red-lipsticked donkey down the streets of your constituency they'd vote for it. Elite. Pah.
Next. Deep breath. Big, BIG deep breath, because this one REALLY gets there:
"But if we trust the British people, if we can persuade them to do what’s right ..."
I think. I pause. I relax. I have a cider while it's still legal.
WHAT. THE. FUCK?
I struggle for the words. Then reality dawns on me. Jesus! These people, or at least this one, really think that's where they stand. Them. Us. Tell us, make us think it's our idea?
How wrong am I, the British People? Please reassure me that he's on his own here, and this isn't REALLY what this is all about?